On Sat, 2 Dec 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> @adjustment@ > >> expression ex; > >> statement S; > >> @@ > >> -LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY > >> +hlist_for_each_entry > >> (..., ..., > >> -ex, > >> ...) > >> S > > > > This is not completely a good idea. > > I tried to show another approach. > > > > The ... in the argument list will match a sequence of things, not a single > > thing. > > How does this information fit to the specification of the SmPL ellipsis > as a placeholder for the last macro parameter? It is just necessary to have the position desire to be changed expressed unambiguously. (... - ex, e1) is also ok. > > > > It could be: > > > > -LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY > > +hlist_for_each_entry > > (e1,e2, > > Are these metavariables required for such an use case? > > > > -ex, > > ...) > > S > > Can such a transformation variant have nicer run time characteristics > in comparison to the initial SmPL script example? In practice, I think it would be very unlikely. julia > Regards, > Markus > _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
